Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Vitally important relatively intact forest areas remaining in the country with high biodiversity and endemic species.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: density of carbon is not mentioned in detail in the proposal - but given the high proportion of natural forests - and large forest plantation areas It is assumed to be quite high. More explanation may be needed to confirm.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Basis is in place and strong organizations of IPLCs are working to solidify their control over their further territories. Strong Philippines legislation but not always implemented fully.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Well explained - Indigenous peoples and local communities presence and knowledge well laid out.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Both major locations appear to be under multiple and extreme threats.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Policies for Indigenous Peoples rights are in place - but complex pressures and a history of some bureaucratic obfuscation means implementation still lages - new policies are proposed by the project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Government support is strong historically - but many pressures are driving the threats.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Multiple projects throughout.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: a number of complimentary projects - impacts and scale not entirely clear.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: livelihoods component is largely missing.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Clearly outlined strategy and approach - with activities consistent with objectives.
Evidence B:Output 2.1 Support to advocacy of the green bills - would benefit from investment in cross-community exchanges and other forms of mobilization with the environmental and indigenous peoples’ movements to increase stakeholder support.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Project is focused sufficiently on ICCAs, capacity building and advocacy. Lack of strong focus on livelihoods could reduce overall effectiveness.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Depending on scale of funds - appears to be well aligned and realistic.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Matching contributions from local communities should not be under rated. A number of synergestic projects, and potential leveraging mentioned. No similarly sized or much larger project explicitly mentioned that would be leveraged.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Probably a realistic estimate.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Cultural indicators strong - and ICCAs an important strategy - livelihoods not mentioned strongly.
Evidence B:Need to streamline the additional indicators for monitoring purposes
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: If proposed recognition of ICCAs is achieved this will provide considerable sustainability.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Well articulated.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Matched with other gender activities of the organization.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The ICCA approach is innovative - though focussing on only two ICCAs may not lead to as massive a scale of transformation - it may be more realistic and have a demonstration effect.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NGOs firmly in the lead with strong collaboration and appropriate FPIC
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Haribon has a long history of work in the country and has taken steps to ensure that FPIC and collaborative processes have been completed.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Strong collaborative role of IPLCs.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Given range of past experience capacity is implied. Previous GEF experience is mentioned.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Strong project management examples provided.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Could have expanded this more - however the documentation on FPIC demonstrates important knowledge and implementation of safeguards in practice.
Evidence B:NA